Mary Sues and Gary Stus (an aimless ramble)
It's weird how official fandoms are filled with Sues and Stus, but when a normal teenager decides to write a fantasy story, it's automatically labeled as cliche` and the protagonist a "sue".
Granted, this DOES happen a lot, as most teenagers can't write good stories for rainbow shit, I can guarantee. But the ironic part is this: everyone ("everyone" here meaning "most people that try to write a novel for the first time") seems to think that they're original. And that what they're writing is like something the world has never seen before.
Listen... there is nothing new under the sun. Give up on trying to go to great lengths to be original. The harder you try, the more everyone can see it, and if you're not an experienced writer or someone with a lot of creativity, there's a good chance that you'll fail and look like an idiot. Just look at Eragon. Yes it sold well... but is it a good story? Are the characters deep? Is it original? (I'll leave the answers up to you. Although Paolini blatantly plagiarized Lord of the Rings. At least know that.)
I'm really sick of seeing bad teenage fantasy writers everywhere (I think I may be one of them, however) that think they have a chance as a big shot, and then I read their work and have nothing to think except "this is shit, you could never get this published, and it does not stand out against other fantasy stories".
Maybe it's my personal taste in genre and writing. Maybe it's because I'm slightly biased against fantasy novels (only because they all seem to tell the same damn boring story over again, with different names for characters and slightly different circumstances). Maybe it's because 90% of what I see really IS shit.
I live by Sturgeon's Law here. Sturgeon's Law states that "Ninety percent of everything is crap. But the other ten percent is worth dying for," and I have found this adage to be true of many things such as books, movies, videogames, and other media... as well as the writings of some of my acquaintances.
Granted, even if a plot is extremely weak, I think that flawless use of the English language can make up for it (only because I lack the ability to write with flawless grammar, spelling, punctuation, idea flow, and the like), and strong characters can also make up for it. But if you have a weak plot with weak characters, don't expect to get published until you fix some shit.
I'm sure there are people out there thinking "what the fuck do you know, you're not a writer, and you've never been published, your opinion is not credible", but to that I can respond with this:
1) Beauty is subjective. I may hate something, someone else might love it.
2) I have seen extensive amounts of win, fail, and everything in between... most of which I have observed OUTSIDE of the internet.
3) I LOVE classic novels and short stories. You know, the ones they forced you to read in school, when you were busy reading Eragon and Twilight? Yeah, THOSE dreadful things: stories you hated, for example... To Kill a Mockingbird, Silas Marner, A Tale of Two Cities, All the Pretty Horses, and The Pit and the Pendulum. If I had to choose between reading one of those stories and reading a story written by the prideful modern teen who thinks they can write, you can guess which of those two I would rather read. I'll admit that I don't like Jane Austen all that much, though. But that's just personal preference.
4) The more awesome you are exposed to, the more you REALLY start to realize that everything else is crap.
5) I am equally analytical as well as creative. A balance between the two is important.
6) I am not a product of my generation.
7) I'm self conscious enough to realize that I look like some kind of prideful idiot right now, and that someone out there is probably upset with me right now and wants to shoot me down simply because I'm too proud, and not because I actually have something to say that other people might regard as useful.
8) While I don't particularly care what you think about me, I'm smart enough to know that I'm not smart enough. What I mean is that I may be wrong. Everything I wrote above may be completely wrong, and I'm willing to accept that. I'm not as intelligent or clever as I sometimes think I am. However, ten years from now, I'll be smarter and more experienced than I am now, and maybe my views would be more credible by then. I leave that as my disclaimer for my intelligence.
I can't think of much else to type. I've written enough as it is, and it's probably not coherent or flowing in the least. But I don't care, it's just LiveJournal. This place isn't really all that important when it comes to expressing my views on things like this, so I figure it's a good place to vent a little without being bothered...
Also, as another disclaimer, I don't really have anything against the first couple of Twilight series books. I'm just using them as an example to contrast between what most teenagers like to read, and what teenagers generally don't like to read.
And on the note of generalizing (people seem to hate generalizing): All generalizations are wrong; including this one.
Granted, this DOES happen a lot, as most teenagers can't write good stories for rainbow shit, I can guarantee. But the ironic part is this: everyone ("everyone" here meaning "most people that try to write a novel for the first time") seems to think that they're original. And that what they're writing is like something the world has never seen before.
Listen... there is nothing new under the sun. Give up on trying to go to great lengths to be original. The harder you try, the more everyone can see it, and if you're not an experienced writer or someone with a lot of creativity, there's a good chance that you'll fail and look like an idiot. Just look at Eragon. Yes it sold well... but is it a good story? Are the characters deep? Is it original? (I'll leave the answers up to you. Although Paolini blatantly plagiarized Lord of the Rings. At least know that.)
I'm really sick of seeing bad teenage fantasy writers everywhere (I think I may be one of them, however) that think they have a chance as a big shot, and then I read their work and have nothing to think except "this is shit, you could never get this published, and it does not stand out against other fantasy stories".
Maybe it's my personal taste in genre and writing. Maybe it's because I'm slightly biased against fantasy novels (only because they all seem to tell the same damn boring story over again, with different names for characters and slightly different circumstances). Maybe it's because 90% of what I see really IS shit.
I live by Sturgeon's Law here. Sturgeon's Law states that "Ninety percent of everything is crap. But the other ten percent is worth dying for," and I have found this adage to be true of many things such as books, movies, videogames, and other media... as well as the writings of some of my acquaintances.
Granted, even if a plot is extremely weak, I think that flawless use of the English language can make up for it (only because I lack the ability to write with flawless grammar, spelling, punctuation, idea flow, and the like), and strong characters can also make up for it. But if you have a weak plot with weak characters, don't expect to get published until you fix some shit.
I'm sure there are people out there thinking "what the fuck do you know, you're not a writer, and you've never been published, your opinion is not credible", but to that I can respond with this:
1) Beauty is subjective. I may hate something, someone else might love it.
2) I have seen extensive amounts of win, fail, and everything in between... most of which I have observed OUTSIDE of the internet.
3) I LOVE classic novels and short stories. You know, the ones they forced you to read in school, when you were busy reading Eragon and Twilight? Yeah, THOSE dreadful things: stories you hated, for example... To Kill a Mockingbird, Silas Marner, A Tale of Two Cities, All the Pretty Horses, and The Pit and the Pendulum. If I had to choose between reading one of those stories and reading a story written by the prideful modern teen who thinks they can write, you can guess which of those two I would rather read. I'll admit that I don't like Jane Austen all that much, though. But that's just personal preference.
4) The more awesome you are exposed to, the more you REALLY start to realize that everything else is crap.
5) I am equally analytical as well as creative. A balance between the two is important.
6) I am not a product of my generation.
7) I'm self conscious enough to realize that I look like some kind of prideful idiot right now, and that someone out there is probably upset with me right now and wants to shoot me down simply because I'm too proud, and not because I actually have something to say that other people might regard as useful.
8) While I don't particularly care what you think about me, I'm smart enough to know that I'm not smart enough. What I mean is that I may be wrong. Everything I wrote above may be completely wrong, and I'm willing to accept that. I'm not as intelligent or clever as I sometimes think I am. However, ten years from now, I'll be smarter and more experienced than I am now, and maybe my views would be more credible by then. I leave that as my disclaimer for my intelligence.
I can't think of much else to type. I've written enough as it is, and it's probably not coherent or flowing in the least. But I don't care, it's just LiveJournal. This place isn't really all that important when it comes to expressing my views on things like this, so I figure it's a good place to vent a little without being bothered...
Also, as another disclaimer, I don't really have anything against the first couple of Twilight series books. I'm just using them as an example to contrast between what most teenagers like to read, and what teenagers generally don't like to read.
And on the note of generalizing (people seem to hate generalizing): All generalizations are wrong; including this one.